Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
we follow the facts. we do not share outside the justice department, outside the f.b.i. the facts of ongoing investigations. we made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security. had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would, of course, had made that known to the president and also to the appropriate members on the hill. but as we went through the investigation, looked at the facts and tried to examine them as they developed, we were very -- we felt e very secure in the knowledge that a national security threat did not exist that warranted the sharing of that information with the white house or the hill. but when we got to a point in the investigation and it was very late in the investigation after a very critical interview occurred on the friday before we made that disclosure, when we got to that point when we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite
associated with general allan's nomination. i would refer you to the fbi in terms of the process seized they they follow. the white house counsel was informed and the white house counsel brought that to the president. on sunday, -- on monday evening, the president was notified that secretary panetta had referred the matter to ig. >> but time is a news conference? >> i do not have a time for you yet. >> did the fbi uses as part of a background check on alan? >> i would -- we do not discuss vetting issues. >> that is part of the confirmation process. >> it is not part of the confirmation process. the department of justice notified the white house counsel that there may be an issue associated with general allen's nomination. was nominated to be supreme allied commander. the hearing was pending. >> who is doing this background check? >> i would refer you to justice and the fbi for far from checks? >> has this been distracting on the president on other important matters? >> this in ballston percent -- is embossed important personnel. >> how much time does it take? >> i do not have the time.
the work of the imdwration service. >> you were turning finger prints over to the f.b.i. >> we worked with ice and turned over people when they were arrested. that is the responsibility of the federal government. we can't put that on the towns anywhere in this country. >> you can have the last word on this topic. >> there are three or four different issues. the original question was about rhode island and the drain on the resources. i've looked at that and the drain on the resources is pretty minimal because the number of undock meanted here who utilize the resources this gentleman is talking about is small, only in the dozens. so i'm not going to worry about the drain in rhode island because the numbers don't bear that out. >> what do they contribute to the economy? >> a lot of them have jobs. just because their undock meanted doesn't mean they don't work. i have a good friend who i won't name who is self-plode. he employees several americans and makes well over 100,000 a year but i have no problem with that sort of thing. i have no problem with the idea just because you're undock me
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3